Democrat Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema: “I don’t care” if Muslims go fight for Taliban against U.S.

The Left hates America, and considers “right-wing extremists,” a term all too often applied to American patriots, far more of a threat than jihad terrorists. It used to be that this fact was dismissed as hysterical hyperbole. Now it is becoming increasingly clear.

Democrat Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema

“Senate Dem hopeful Kyrsten Sinema said ‘I don’t care’ if people go to fight for Taliban against US,” by Lukas Mikelionis, Fox News, October 10, 2018:

An old interview has surfaced with Arizona senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema, in which she co-hosted a show with a conspiracy theorists who blames 9/11 on the US. Government. Sinema separately said she didn’t object to individuals going abroad and fighting for groups hostile to the U.S.

U.S. Democratic Senate hopeful Kyrsten Sinema said “I don’t care” if people go and fight for the Taliban in Afghanistan in a newly resurfaced radio interview and co-hosted a radio show with a conspiracy theorist who claimed the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were perpetrated by the government, Fox News can reveal.

Sinema appeared on a radio show in February 2003 hosted by Ernest Hancock, a libertarian activist who presented “The Valley of the Sun” program on a local Arizona radio station.

During the interview, Sinema told the host that she didn’t object to individuals going abroad and fighting for groups hostile to the U.S.

“As an individual, if I want to go fight in the Taliban army, I go over there, and I’m fighting for the Taliban, I’m saying that’s a personal decision,” Hancock told Sinema, who was then a Green Party activist.

“Fine. I don’t care if you go and do that, go ahead,” she replied, according to the audio recording obtained by Fox News.

In the same interview, Sinema said the U.S. military went into the Middle East for “a number of reasons,” including “oil, power, control” of the region.

“There’s also, what I think is rather convenient, which is the switch and bait theory, which is, don’t pay attention to the falling economy, don’t pay attention to the tax cuts for wealthy, let’s pay attention to this horrible imminent threat,” she added.

Just two months after the interview and a month after the start of the Iraq War, she told the Arizona Republic that “we should feel compassion” for enemy combatants killed in the country….

RELATED ARTICLE: Exposed: Democratic Senate Candidate Has Damaging Tweets and Speeches Surface

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. Republished with permission. The featured photo is from Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema’s Facebook page.

Michael Cutler: Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner Says Illegal Immigration Contributes to Chicago Gun Violence

Former INS Agent Michael Cutler joins Dana Loesch to weigh in.

The Radical Left’s Sex Crimes Hypocrisy

The issue of sexual assault has become the latest focus for the leaders of the increasingly radical Democratic party.

Make no mistake, sexual assault is a terrible crime that may prove to be life-altering for the victim of such crimes and for members of the victim’s family.

However, the question that must be asked, is whether or not the Democrats really care about preventing sexual assault or in simply exploiting this horrific crime for political purposes.

Consider how so-called “Sanctuary Cities” shield aliens from detection and apprehension by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents including aliens who have been convicted of committing violent crimes that include sexual assault and rape that allow them to remain at large.

Sanctuary Cities are almost entirely the invention and creation of Democratic politicians.

While radical Democrats in the U.S. Senate desperately and viciously attacked Judge Kavanaugh for an alleged but utterly unsubstantiated sexual assault that purportedly occurred more than three decades ago, law enforcement officers on Long Island diligently went about their jobs to locate and apprehend an illegal alien from El Salvador, Ever Martinez Reyes (pictured above), an alleged violent rapist who is accused of raping a 36 year old woman on the lawn of her own house in Freeport, New York on September 28th of this year.

On October 6, 2018 a local television station, WPIX posted a news report about the case, Police arrest man accused of raping woman in Freeport.  The report concluded with these two sentences:

“I’ve been doing this a long time this is one of the most brutal rapes I have ever seen,” said Nassau County District Attorney Madeline Singas.

Police say Martinez Reyes is an illegal immigrant and was preparing to flee back to his native El Salvador when he caught.

That last sentence addresses an issue I have noted in many of my previous articles and even in some of my Congressional testimony over the years, that criminal aliens have a “trap door” that they may use to escape the “Long arm of the law.”  They have the ability to flee the United States and hide in their home countries where extradition bay be difficult if not impossible.

This provides foreign criminals with an advantage over law enforcement that American criminals don’t have and, in my experience, emboldens alien criminals who know that they can “get out of Dodge” when they commit crimes.

On October 6th the local CBS television station also posted an article about this case, Arrest Made In Violent Freeport Rape reporting that the attack on the 36 year old woman went on for approximately one hour during which She was allegedly knocked unconscious twice and suffered eye damage,   Her alleged assailant, Martinez Reyes has been charged with two counts of rape in the first-degree, two counts of sexual abuse and assault.

The CBS report noted:

Police describe Reyes as a day laborer/landscaper who did not know the victim with no prior criminal record. Investigators say he first came to the United States in 2010 at 16 after crossing the border in Texas. He was sent back and crossed the border again illegally in 2014.

The inexact language used by the reporters and police officers in describing immigration law violations underscores how immigration laws are ignored by all too many local law enforcement officers and prosecutors, thereby endangering public safety and national security.  What does the term “sent back” mean?  Was he ordered removed?

In point of fact, the expanding tactic for local, city and even some state governments to promulgate so-called “Sanctuary” policies all too frequently stymie law enforcement efforts by ICE agents to identify, locate, arrest and deport criminal aliens to effectively address the problem of recidivism.  This would help protect members of the ethnic immigrant communities where criminal aliens, from around the world, ply their criminal “trades.”

The stark reality is that Sanctuary Policies Protect Sex Offenderswhere victims are mere “speed bumps” on the road to anarchy.

The title of a frustrating recent report, States Enacted 116 Immigration Laws in 2018 It’s a slight decline from last year but still more than usual, shows how more and more jurisdictions are undermining border security and the integrity of the immigration system and, consequently, endangering public safety and national security.

Sanctuary policies may prohibit any sort of cooperation between those law enforcement entities and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to shield illegal aliens, including vicious criminals, from detection and removal from the United States by ICE agents.

As I noted in a recent article, Democrats’ Attack On Ice Agents Is Working (working to block border security and immigration law enforcement).

Meanwhile, there is irrefutable evidence that a nexus exists between Illegal Immigration And Crime.

News reports noted that Reyes was “sent back” but there is not clarity as to whether or not he was formally removed (deported) from the United States in 2010 per an order by an Immigration Judge.  He is alleged to have subsequently reentered the United States without authorization.

If his removal from the United States was the result of an order of removal, that act, of reentering after removal without authorization, in and of itself, would constitute a federal felony that carries a maximum of two years in prison under the provisions of 8 U.S. Code § 1326 – Reentry of removed aliens.  Under s section of that statute, aliens who have convictions for serious crimes face a maximum of 20 years in prison.

Aliens who had been previously deported and illegally reentered the U.S. would not only face jail tim[e], upon conviction. for crimes he/she may have committed upon returning illegally to the U.S., but could also face additional significant jail time for the crime of unlawful reentry.

Finally, such a criminal alien would then be deported from the United States.

These efforts would shield potential victims of such violent criminals who would be spending years in prison and then be removed from the United States.

Instead, sanctuary policies shield criminal aliens while endangering their potential victims.

However, none of the news accounts indicate that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) had been involved in the investigation and arrest of Ever Martinez Reyes.

Today the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States is greatly hobbled because of a number of factors beginning with the pitifully small number of ICE agents.  There are approximately 6,000 ICE agents throughout the entire United States.. Furthermore, these overwhelmed and beleaguered agents not only enforce our immigration laws but customs laws, intellectual property laws, narcotics laws, laws pertaining to financial crimes and even laws that focus on the production of kiddie porn along with many other laws that are irrelevant to the enforcement of our immigration laws.

While the Democrats have literally gone off the “deep end” Republican politicians are only marginally better.  The federal budget, for example, once again did not include funding for the border wall.

In fact, it is my belief that when President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, rather than enhance border security and the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, his actions did quite the opposite.

On May 5, 2005 I testified at a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”  Of particular significance is the statement made by the then-chairman of that subcommittee, Rep. John Hostettler who, in part said in his prepared statement:

The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.

Consider this additional excerpt from Chairman Hostettler’s testimony:

At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

The midterm elections are nearly upon us.  The Republicans must finally come to terms with what is in the best interests for America and Americans, effective immigration law enforcement that does more than pay “lip service” to the demands of the great majority of American citizens.

As I noted in a recent article, America Needs A Border Wall Like Houses Need Insulation.  Insulation, as any homeowner will tell you, pays for itself in short order.  Securing the U.S./Mexican border would save lives and billions of dollars annually in the terms of money flowing out of the United States from illegal aliens working in the United States and as a result of the drug trade.

The Republicans must provide Americans with a true alternative to the anarchy and calls to sedition by the radical Left even as more innocent people fall victim to criminal aliens that the Democrats sanctimoniously shield from ICE.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo by Ari Spada on Unsplash.

LtCol Oliver North: Don’t Let Them Make America Weak Again

“We cured the ills they brought to our country, so come this November, don’t let their disease make America weak again.” —NRA President LtCol Oliver North

Full Transcript

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a new favorite line… that Donald Trump is a symptom, not the cause.

But here’s the Truth… Our President and all of us who believe in Making America Great, are a cure…

A cure to an ideology of elitism that looks down on those who own guns or pray to God, and calls our neighbors in the heartland deplorables.

A cure to an America last foreign policy that restricted the might of our military, and denied our wounded heroes the care they deserve.

A cure to targeting law enforcement, while celebrating those who dishonor our flag.

A cure to a Secretary of State who lied about Benghazi and a former president who disgracefully called the murder of those four Americans, a conspiracy theory.

And a cure to those who deny America’s greatness.

We cured the ills they brought to our country, so come this November, don’t let their disease make America weak again.

Cap for refugee admissions to the U.S. for FY19 finalized—30,000

I missed this last week and so did most everyone as official Washington was in turmoil over the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

white-house-logo-md-bl

The President signed the Memorandum on Thursday. 

We had already reported on the expected 30,000 cap, but up until the President’s signature  on the the determination we still weren’t sure how many refugees could enter the US in the fiscal year we bean just last Monday.

See the Memorandum from the President, here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society heavily involved in Midterm election politics

DR Congo tops the list for highest number of refugees resettled in US in FY18

India for Indians: Rohingya Muslim deportations begin, angering UN

Kansas City Somali family of nine wants Trump to let Dad in to US

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of WhiteHouse.gov.

Possible Replacements for Nikki Haley Already Being Floated as Trump Says Announcement Coming Soon

Pundits are already throwing out the names of individuals who could replace outgoing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley after her Tuesday announcement that she intends to step down at the end of 2018.

Current U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell is already getting a large share of the attention after President Donald Trump said at a Tuesday Oval Office press conference that the new U.N. ambassador will be announced within two to three weeks.

dcnf-logo

Other possible candidates include former deputy national security adviser for strategy Dina Powell and even Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, who is one of his advisers.

Richard Grenell

Grenell is a Harvard-educated diplomat who was confirmed to his current post as U.S. ambassador to Germany in April. He is the longest-serving appointee at the U.N. in history, having served “as a U.S. spokesman and political appointee to the U.N.” for eight years, according to the Washington Examiner.

He is also on good terms with national security adviser John Bolton after the two worked together in former President George W. Bush’s administration, according to the Washington Examiner.

Grenell was on Trump’s short list for U.N. ambassador during the 2016 presidential election, reported The New York Post. He would have been the first openly gay U.S. ambassador to the U.N. had he been selected. Grenell is pro-Israel and was recently noted by The Daily Caller for “quietly convincing German companies to discontinue business with Iran.”

“The obvious choice for the UN slot is Richard Grenell,” tweeted conservative commentator Kurt Schlichter Tuesday.

Dina Powell

Powell served as deputy national security adviser for strategy in the Trump administration until revealing that she was leaving for investment company Goldman Sachs in February, according to Axios. She played a key role in Middle East policy during her time working for Trump, reported Newsweek.

Powell has close ties to Ivanka Trump after formally advising her on “women’s programming,” according to U.S. News & World Report.

Powell was born in Egypt to an Egyptian army captain and is a Coptic Christian, according to U.S. News & World Report.

Haley and Powell spent the weekend together in South Carolina, The Washington Post’s White House reporter Josh Dawsey wrote on Twitter Tuesday.

Ivanka Trump

The first daughter and current adviser to her father would be a surprising choice for Haley’s role and could be sticky in light of anti-nepotism laws, reported Newsweek. Ivanka Trump did not draw a salary for her work at the White House as of 2017, reported NBC News.

Trump was reportedly considered when an alleged “scenario circulated in which Ms. Trump could replace Nikki R. Haley as ambassador to the United Nations if Ms. Haley replaced Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson,” reported The New York Times in November 2017.

Haley called Trump “a great friend” at the Tuesday Oval Office press conference, and the president’s daughter posted about her admiration for Haley on Twitter Tuesday.

“Ambassador Haley has served America with dignity [and] distinction,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “She is a bold reformer and has been an unwavering champion of truth, principled realism and integrity within the United Nations. Jared and I are grateful for her friendship — a true blessing in our lives!”

 

UN Court Siding With Iran Reveals More D.C. Cleanup Is Needed

The United States was handed yet another snub by the United Nations last week when its International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered it to undo sanctions against Iran that would interfere with the importation of humanitarian goods and services to that country.

Specifically, the court ordered the United States to remove those sanctions dealing with “medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities and spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.”

The United States immediately cried foul with John Bolton, the United States National Security Advisor, pointing out that the ICJ had allowed itself to be used “as a forum for propaganda” by Iran.

But here’s the head-smacking part: There is still a 63-year-old treaty in effect between the nations on which the court based its ruling.

Iran contended that the United States’ actions of reinstating sanctions in May were in breach of the Treaty of Amity signed in 1955 between President Dwight D. Eisenhower and King Mohammad Reza Shah. This treaty included an arbitration agreement of sorts that would make the ICJ the arbiter of any disputes between the two nations.

But the sanctions dispute was not the only contention made by Iran before the ICJ. The international court also argued that the United States had acted illegally in unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear accord, a charge the ICJ rejected.

However, the ICJ sided unanimously with Iran in its contentions regarding sanctions against products and services necessary for humanitarian aid. The ruling also declared that the international community viewed the reimposition of sanctions by the United States as illegal. 

United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded forcefully by immediately withdrawing the United States from the Treaty and activating its one-year termination clause under Article XXIII. In the meantime, Bolton contended that the Treaty could not be considered in force in light of Iran’s hostile behavior towards the United States and the community of nations.

“Iran is a rogue regime,” he said. “It has been a threat throughout the Middle East, not only for its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, but it’s (sic) acted for several decades as the central banker for international terrorism.”

Of course, Bolton is correct in his assertion.

Article I of the Treaty calls for “a firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the United States of America and Iran,” a provision that was permanently and irreversibly violated by Iran with the swarming of the American Embassy and the taking of American hostages for 444 days in 1979. Among others, that act of hostility violated numerous other provisions of the Treaty designed to guarantee the rights and safety of the nationals and companies in Iran. Additionally, Iran’s numerous actions of hostility towards the United States and its regional neighbors have cut to shreds any semblance of a treaty.

Regardless, because the Treaty still exists on paper, the ICJ decided to honor it, thus giving the Iranian regime ammunition with which to ironically call the United States “an outlaw regime.”

In light of the irreparable deterioration of relations between the two countries and the widespread disregard of the provisions of the Treaty, it is amazing that the United States did not withdraw years ago, an observation that did not escape John Bolton.

“Given this history and Iran’s abuse of the ICJ, we will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction and dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice.”

It’s past time we did.

Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy singles out ‘radical Islamists’

Bolton says: “Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad. The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology. This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

The idea that there is a significant pushback to the jihad ideology within the Islamic world is a trifle overstated. The concept of jihad as meaning warfare against unbelievers in order to establish Islamic law’s hegemony over them is deeply rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, as well as in Islamic law. Nonetheless, in 2011 the Obama Administration removed all mention of Islam and jihad from counterterror training; this is a strong step in the right direction, toward once again enabling counterterror analysts to study and understand the motivating ideology of the enemy.

“New White House Counterterrorism Strategy Singles Out ‘Radical Islamists,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, October 4, 2018:

The Trump administration is implementing a new, government-wide counterterrorism strategy that places renewed focus on combatting “radical Islamic terrorist groups,” marking a significant departure from the Obama administration, which implemented a series of policies aimed at deemphasizing the threat of Islamic terror groups.

In releasing the first national counterterrorism strategy since 2011, the Trump administration is working to take a drastically different approach than that of the former administration, according to senior U.S. officials.

While the Obama administration sought to dampen the United States’ focus on Islamic terror threats, the Trump administration has made this battle the centerpiece of its new strategy.

National Security Adviser John Bolton acknowledged in remarks to reporters Thursday afternoon that the new strategy is “a departure” from the former administration’s strategy, which has been characterized as a failure by Republican foreign policy voices due to the increasing number of domestic terror attacks and plots across the United States

“Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad,” Bolton said.

“The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology,” Bolton said. “This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

“One may hope that the ideological fervor disappears, but sad to report, it remains strong all around the world, and even with the defeat of the ISIS territorial caliphate, we see the threat spreading to other countries,” Bolton added.

The Trump administration strategy also shifts the focus to Iran, characterizing the country as the foremost state sponsor of terror across the globe.

“The United States faces terrorist threats from Iran, which remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism that, really, the world’s central banker of international terrorism since 1979,” Bolton said. “And from other terrorist groups. Iran-sponsored terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic jihad, continue to pose a threat to the United States and our interests.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured photo is by Sophie Keen on Unsplash.

VIDEO: How the Democratic Party is being taken over by 57,000 Socialists and Communists

DECLASSIFIED reports:

The Communist Party USA explained plans on May 23 [2018] to subvert the Democratic Party, alongside socialist and communist organizations including Democratic Socialists of America, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, LeftRoots, and others. In some U.S. states, communist party members are barred from becoming elected officials, yet through this latest effort, democrats may unwittingly vote communists into office.

ABOUT DECLASSIFIED

Declassified is a new channel from The Epoch Times focused on unseen wars, unconventional weapons, political analysis, and related topics. Join hosts Joshua Philipp and Gina Shakespeare as they speak with some of the leading experts in the field about security issues that are often little known, but that affect all of us.

Topics Declassified will cover: subversion, psychological warfare, space warfare, crime, espionage, terrorism, ideology, unconventional weapons, military, law enforcement, patriotism and traditional values.

Mission: Chasing the truth, grounding all statements in facts, preventing people from being misinformed and misled — The Epoch Times is a return to traditional and authentic journalism.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Liberal Teacher Tweets: “So Who’s Gonna Take One For the Team and Kill Kavanaugh?”

How 57,000 Socialists and Communists Are Planning to Take Over the Democratic Party

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Rochelle Brown on Unsplash.

The Alternative Two-State Solution

President Trump at his most recent press conference was asked if he favored a two-state or a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He was open, he said, to what the parties agree to, but then said, “I like the two-state solution. That’s what I think works best.”

But where would the so-called Palestinian state be located? To create yet another Arab state, this one torn out of Judea and Samaria – the tiny Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland west of the River Jordan (known also as the West Bank) – would be a monumental travesty of both Biblical and post-Biblical reality and history. It would also be an existential threat to Israel’s very survival.

But if Jordan, which is populated by two thirds Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, becomes the Palestinian state then I say yes to a two-state solution, but only if that Arab state is located east of Israel, the Jewish state, which retains full sovereignty from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan, (still a miniscule state stretching a mere 40 miles at its widest). The far larger PalestinianArab state would be east of the Jordan River. With this in mind, I deeply respect the work of Ted Bellman who has been advocating for a Jordan is Palestine solution, and whose highlighted article I urge folks to read.

Jordan constitutes nearly 80 percent of the old British Mandate, or what was known then as geographical Palestine. This region never included an independent or sovereign Palestinian Arab state throughout all of recorded history, nor was there ever an independent Arab Palestinian people. Geographical Palestine was simply a territory, for example as is Siberia or Patagonia today. But there was one people in the Land since time immemorial; the Jewish people. It’s all in the Bible.

To fully understand the origins of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, we must go back to the early years of the 20th century. In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Palestine Mandate with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home based upon the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29, 1917.

But Great Britain in 1922 arbitrarily tore away all the vast territory east of the River Jordan and gave it away to the Arab Hashemite tribe as a compensation for giving up the throne of Arabia to the Saud family. The territory and entity became Trans-Jordan and British officials claimed that the gift of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River was also in gratitude to the Hashemites for helping defeat the Turks. However, Lawrence of Arabia described in derisory terms this Hashemite role as “a side show of a side show.”

Ironically, Britain was aided far more by the Jewish Nili underground movement in defeating the Ottoman Turkish Empire which had ruled geographical Palestine for 400 years. This then was the first partition of Mandatory Palestine – the first two-state solution. Trans-Jordan, as it was then known, covered some 35,000 square miles, or nearly four fifths of the erstwhile Palestine Mandate. Immediately, Jewish residence in this new Arab territory was forbidden, and it is thus historically and unequivocally correct to state that Jordan is Palestine.

During its administration of the remaining Palestine Mandate, west of the River Jordan and until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab migration into the territory from neighboring stagnant Arab states. The descendants of those illegal migrants make up most of the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians.

The British Foreign Office’s sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs and bias against the Jewish people, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining tiny territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, dealt a deathblow to millions of Jews attempting to flee to safety from extermination by Nazi Germany and its European supporters.

Britain’s mismanagement of the Mandate finally led to the United Nations’ Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency reluctantly accepted this additional dismemberment of what was left of the promised Jewish national home in Mandatory Palestine. They did this to provide a refuge for the surviving Jewish remnants of the Holocaust and for the 800,000 plus desperate Jewish refugees who were driven penniless out of their homes throughout the Arab world. In contrast, the Arab regimes rejected the Partition Plan even though a Palestinian state would have come into existence at that time. Then, as now, the Arabs plotted and warred against the existence of an independent Jewish state.

Israel was officially reborn as a sovereign nation in 1948, and its 600,000 Jews fought to survive the massive Arab onslaught, which was intended to exterminate the Jewish homeland.

Trans-Jordan, renamed the Kingdom of Jordan in 1946, joined the other Arab nations in invading the newly reconstituted Jewish state, driving out the Jewish inhabitants from the eastern part of Jerusalem and the Old City, annexing the Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized this illegal annexation.

In the June 1967 Six-Day War, Israel defeated the combined Arab armies and liberated Jewish and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria from the Jordanian occupation. But in return for Israeli offers to help create a Palestinian state, the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August 1967, delivered the infamous three Nos: No peace with Israel, No negotiations with Israel, No recognition of Israel.

It is within the narrow 40-mile-wide territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of a fraudulent Arab state to be called Palestine – a state that has never existed in all of recorded history.

Here then is the present unworkable and so-called two-state solution, which would dismember what is left of Israel and drive hundreds of thousands of Jewish residents from their homes, villages, and farms in Judea and Samaria. The searing tragedy is that such a two-state solution would presage for the Jewish people yet another Final Solution – the German Nazi regime’s euphemism for the Holocaust.

The empirical fact is that this is not a dispute over borders. This is a religious war and the Arabs, overwhelmingly Muslim, can never accept the existence of any non-Muslim state in territory previously conquered by them in the name of Allah and will relentlessly war against it. Hopefully President Trump and his top advisers, Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, can all be made aware of this fundamental Islamic fact before yet another terrible injustice is once again perpetrated.

A two-state solution must be between Israel, with full sovereignty west of the Jordan River, and Jordan having full sovereignty east of the River Jordan, but which – if the Arabs in Jordan so choose – could be renamed Palestine; an idea for which Ted Bellman and others, including myself, have consistently advocated.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Renew America. The featured photo is by Yosef Pregadio on Unsplash.

Judge rules California Sanctuary State Law Unconstitutional. California Attorney General We Don’t Care!

Eye Witness News ABC Channel 7 reports:

An Orange County judge on Thursday ruled that SB54, California’s so-called “sanctuary state” law, is unconstitutional.

The Superior Court judge said the law violates the rights of charter cities.

The ruling comes in response to a challenge from Huntington Beach officials. The city opposed the controversial law, arguing it infringes on local governments’ authority. The judge agreed, saying cities must be allowed to police themselves.

The law bars some cooperation between local cities and federal officials enforcing immigration laws. Exceptions include cases that involve violent or serious felonies.

Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates called the ruling a victory for the state’s 121 charter cities.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Despite an Orange County judge’s ruling this week that California’s so-called sanctuary protections for immigrants who are in the country illegally are unconstitutional as they apply to charter cities, state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said Friday that the state would continue to uphold its laws.

“Preserving the safety and constitutional rights of all our people is a statewide imperative which cannot be undermined by contrary local rules,” Becerra said in a statement. “We will continue working to ensure that our values and laws like the California Values Act are upheld throughout our state.”

Jennifer Molina, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, declined to comment on the likelihood of an appeal.

Huntington Beach on Thursday became the first city to successfully challenge the California Values Act, also known as Senate Bill 54, after Orange County Superior Court Judge James Crandall affirmed that the law violates its local control as a charter city — one governed by a charter adopted by local voters.

Not that California State Attorney General Becerra’s statement “Preserving the safety and constitutional rights of all our people is a statewide imperative which cannot be undermined by contrary local rules…” But those people in California illegally are not citizens either of California nor America. They have no legal status unless granted citizenship by the federal government.

It appears that in California, like in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the rule of law does not apply to Democrats, only to their political opponents?

RELATED ARTICLE: Orange County Board votes to join Trump admin lawsuit against CA over sanctuary law

President Trump Should Be Next Week’s Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

On Oct. 5, 2018, the Norwegian Nobel Committee will be announcing this year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. If there is any remaining intellectual honesty in the Committee, the next Nobel Peace Prize Laureate should be President Donald J. Trump.

To be sure, he would be an unconventional choice, but President Trump is an unconventional man, and we are living in an historical pinnacle of unconventionality.

So, why does President Trump merit the Nobel prize?

First, he has consistently delivered a vision for the world’s future centered upon the concepts of individual freedoms, democracy, patriotism, and the supremacy of the nation state. He has told the community of nations that unlike the message delivered by his predecessors, it’s okay for each nation to represent its own interests, while accepting that the United States will be acting with the same premise. But even as he delivers this message, he cautions about the necessity of adherence to the Thomistic presumption that a nation’s leader, indeed the nation itself, exists for the purposes of promoting the rights of its citizens and loses its right to remain in power if it abandons the rights of the people they represent.

Consequently, President Trump called out Venezuela for its socialistic policies that he says have bankrupted that state and oppressed its people. He also called out Iran and its tyrannical actions, not only with regard to its citizens, but also as they relate to its regional neighbors. As such, he has withdrawn the United States from the Iran deal that only served to enrich Iran and strengthen its support of rogue regimes and terrorist organizations.

Additionally, Trump has unequivocally identified the absolute unacceptability of allowing Iran, a regime that routinely chants death to Americans and calls for the annihilation of Israel, to possess a nuclear weapon and has mobilized nations to pressure the regime into abandoning the program.

Within the United Nations, he has insisted that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights be reformed and has called for ending the practice of allowing nations that do not respect the fundamental rights of man from being allowed access to world trade.

Except for those celebrating magniloquence and rhetoric, no award should be given without the actions to merit them. So, let’s look at what President Trump has accomplished.

President Trump’s first visit abroad included Saudi Arabia, Israel, Rome, Brussels, and Sicily on the same trip, sending a symbol of unification and leadership unmatched since Kissinger’s visit to China and Reagan’s visit to Berlin.

On the humanitarian front, on July 7, 2017, during a working session of the G20 summit of world leaders, President Trump promised $639 million in humanitarian aid for Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria, and Yemen (yes, Yemen).

In the Middle East, he procured the commitment from the region’s nations, so that they, for the first time, worked seriously with the United States to end terrorism. Their concerted efforts at ridding the world of this cancer was instrumental to defeating ISIS, a feat not possible except for the motivational and leadership efforts of one Donald J. Trump. These same countries have now pledged to provide $2 billion in humanitarian aid for Yemen.

In Iran, the President has stopped the flow of billions of dollars to the regime and is working with the international community to increase the pressure with the aim of changing Iran’s hostile and destructive behaviors.

But perhaps North Korea is where the President’s influence has been most effective. For the first time, denuclearization is a real, albeit still difficult, possibility. The world took note when the President met with Kim Jong-Un and, amazingly, offered him the chance to have a look at the inside of the Presidential limousine. Who can forget Kim Jong-Un’s joyful reaction to that spontaneous and unscripted moment? As a result, Rocket Man stopped shooting rockets, American remains are being returned, and hostages have been released (this time in better conditions than being on the brink of death).

The only American leader to have the courage to move the American embassy to Jerusalem in compliance with Israel’s desires is Donald J Trump. He did it as promised, and he did it despite the protestations from countless others. In the end, despite the unrelenting pressure against him, the mission was accomplished and the threatened apocalypse never happened.

Yes, President Trump’s style is confrontational, and he continuously deploys hard-hitting rhetoric laced with unapologetic stances. Almost incomprehensibly, he has been willing to take the world to the brink of war with the aim of achieving of a lasting peace; and as he likes to say, he has won and continues to win in so doing.

Although the left is busy criticizing him, maligning him, and even laughing at him, President Trump’s many accomplishments at making the world a safer place in a mere two years has really been nothing short of remarkable. So, we are left with one question for the Norwegian Nobel Committee: what person has accomplished more than Donald J. Trump to improve man’s situation and foster peace on earth in the recent past?

As difficult as it may be for some to admit. The answer is no one.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Trump and Congress Just Gave the Military a Big Boost

The military can celebrate some great news this weekend.

On Friday, President Donald Trump signed the appropriations package that provides funding for the 2019 defense budget, giving the military a much-needed boost.

The nondefense elements of the bill are less welcome, however, and will not serve our country’s overall economic health. The totality of the bill will contribute to our increasing debt and deficit, while not reforming the unsustainable trajectory of federal spending.

The bill also fails to address any conservative policy priorities outside the realm of defense.

Many members of Congress stomached all the shortcomings of the bill because of the importance of the defense-related elements in the legislation. Most members of Congress understand that the current state of our armed forces warrants an increased and timely budget.

Since its inaugural edition in 2015, The Heritage Foundation’s Index of U.S. Military Strength has catalogued the current state of our military, measured against its ability to engage in two simultaneous major wars.

Recent years have been unkind to our armed forces, as all four branches have experienced decline in multiple areas. For example, the Air Force is the smallest it has ever been and possesses the oldest planes since it was formed. At the same time, a rising China, an aggressive Russia, a terror-supporting Iran, and a nuclear-armed North Korea all present new and formidable threats to U.S. interests.

Thankfully, because of Trump’s early push to rebuild the military and his partnership with Congress in passing appropriations in 2017 and 2018, we now have some hopeful indications that the tide has begun to turn. For example, readiness among Army brigade combat teams has improved since 2017.

These and other key changes will be discussed when The Heritage Foundation releases the 2019 edition of the Index of U.S. Military Strength on Oct. 4. The keynote speaker, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, has long championed a strong and robust military.

The newly passed 2019 defense appropriations bill is an important part of the road to recovery. There are many things to applaud in the bill.

First of all, it was signed before the beginning of the new fiscal year. This means that for the first time since 2010, the Pentagon will not have to deal with the negative effects of operating under a continuing resolution. This rare funding constancy at the start of the fiscal year will allow the services to actually use all 12 months of the year to train and rationally spend the money provided for their use.

The bill also provides military personnel with a well-deserved 2.6 percent pay raise. The raise will help to attract new recruits and retain current service members. This is especially critical in a day when fewer and fewer Americans are eligible to serve and the Army in particular is struggling to meet its recruitment goals.

In addition, the bill will fund the Pentagon to increase its forces by over 24,000. It will also begin the process of increasing the size of the Navy’s fleet, investing over $24 billion in the construction of new ships. It also funds 93 new F-35 combat aircraft—the most capable fighter in the world.

The bill also provides more funding for military hardware and research and development efforts that, if sustained, will be of great help to our military.

Notwithstanding these positives and the military’s recent modest gains in readiness, the United States cannot consider the rebuilding of our military completed.

It took years of over-use and budget cuts for our armed forces to deteriorate to the degree that they have. It will therefore take years to reverse the decline in readiness and restore our military to serve the nation’s needs, as our national leaders have described.

Rebuilding our military is not a one-year process, and it will require continued investment and care in the coming years. We cannot and should not consider the job done.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Frederico Bartels

Frederico Bartels is a policy analyst for defense budgeting at The Heritage Foundation’s Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy. Twitter: .


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of an F-35C Lightning II preparing to launch from the USS Abraham Lincoln, Aug. 20, 2018. (Photo: Us Navy/Zuma Press/Newscom). Reprinted with permission.

Free speech victory: 9th Circuit rules that Seattle’s rejection of AFDI anti-terror ad violates First Amendment

An important victory for the increasingly embattled freedom of speech. Read Pamela Geller’s reaction and background on this case here.

“AFLC Victory Over Government Apologists for Islamic Jihad: Ninth Circuit Unanimously Rules that King County’s Rejection of ‘Faces of Global Terrorism’ Ad Violates the First Amendment,” American Freedom Law Center, September 27, 2018:

Seattle, Washington (September 27, 2018) — Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that King County’s rejection of a “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad submitted by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and their organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), violated the First Amendment.

In it ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the County’s rejection of the ad based on its disparagement standard was viewpoint discrimination and that its rejection of the ad based on its disruption standard was unreasonable, all in violation of the First Amendment.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of Geller, Spencer, and AFDI.

The ad at issue was modeled after an advertisement submitted by the federal government and accepted for display by the County in 2013.  The State Department ad depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.”  The advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

The terrorists identified in the ad were also found on the FBI’s most wanted global terrorists list, which is posted on the FBI’s website.  At the time, this list included pictures and “wanted posters” for thirty-two terrorists.  Of the thirty-two listed terrorists, thirty were individuals with Muslim names or were wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.

According to news reports, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad campaign after receiving complaints from politicians and advocacy groups that took offense that the list of wanted global terrorists pictured in the ad appeared to include only Muslim terrorists.

Shortly after the government pulled the ad, Geller and Spencer, on behalf of AFDI, submitted an ad to the County that included the same pictures, names, and message as the government’s earlier display.  The County transit authority refused to run the ad in part because it claimed the ad was not wholly accurate about which government agency ran the rewards program and the amount of the awards, prompting AFLC to file this lawsuit.

After the courts agreed with the County, AFDI submitted a revised ad, this time making certain the ad was presented in such a way that removed the inaccuracy argument.  The County still refused to run the ad on the grounds that it was disparaging to Muslims and that it would be disruptive to the transit authority.

The trial court once again ruled in favor of the County.  AFLC appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that “[b]ecause neither of the [County’s] reasons for rejecting Plaintiffs’ revised ad withstands First Amendment scrutiny, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for Plaintiffs on this claim.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented:

“This is an important victory for free speech.  Too often we are seeing government officials restricting speech based on claims that it is demeaning, disparaging, or offensive.  The First Amendment does not allow such censorship, as the Ninth Circuit’s opinion makes clear.  Under the First Amendment, the government is not permitted to impose special prohibitions on speakers who express views on disfavored subjects or on the basis of hostility towards the messenger or the underlying message expressed.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, added:

“It is clear from the record and the Ninth Circuit’s decision that King County, which initially accepted the federal government’s ad only to have the feds pull the ad for fear of offending Muslims, is suffering from the debilitating disease of political correctness.  And there is little doubt that County officials also dislike the messenger—our clients—who are doing a great service by alerting all Americans to the dangers of sharia and its followers.”

AFLC has represented Geller, Spencer, and AFDI successfully in federal lawsuits across the country, most notably in New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., where the courts have ordered the transit authorities to run AFDI’s anti-terrorism ads.  In each of those cases, the transit authorities were forced to pay substantial legal fees to AFLC.  In Chicago, the transit authority initially refused to run an AFDI “anti-jihad” ad, only to capitulate after stating in a letter that while transit authority officials considered the ad “morally reprehensible,” they were aware of AFLC’s successful litigation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured image is a comparison of the FBI and AFDI ads.

CHINESE CITIZEN ARRESTED BY FBI FOR SPYING ON U.S.: A case that highlights the nexus between immigration and espionage.

On September 25, 2018 the Justice Department issued a press release, Chinese National Arrested for Allegedly Acting Within the United States as an Illegal Agent of the People’s Republic of China.

That Chinese national was identified as Ji Chaoqun, a 27 year old Chinese citizen who had been residing in Chicago was arrested by the FBI for allegedly acting as an illegal agent of the Chinese government.

The Criminal Complaint provided in the press release provides additional information, but this excerpt from the press release lays out the Justice Department’s allegations concerning Chaoqun:

Ji worked at the direction of a high-level intelligence officer in the Jiangsu Province Ministry of State Security, a provincial department of the Ministry of State Security for the People’s Republic of China, according to a criminal complaint and affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago. Ji was tasked with providing the intelligence officer with biographical information on eight individuals for possible recruitment by the JSSD, the complaint states. The individuals included Chinese nationals who were working as engineers and scientists in the United States, some of whom were U.S. defense contractors, according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, Ji was born in China and arrived in the United States in 2013 on an F1 Visa, for the purpose of studying electrical engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. In 2016, Ji enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves as an E4 Specialist under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program, which authorizes the U.S. Armed Forces to recruit certain legal aliens whose skills are considered vital to the national interest. In his application to participate in the MAVNI program, Ji specifically denied having had contact with a foreign government within the past seven years, the complaint states. In a subsequent interview with a U.S. Army officer, Ji again failed to disclose his relationship and contacts with the intelligence officer, the charge alleges.

I have written several articles and commentaries about my concerns that while China has acted as an adversary of the United States last year more than 150,000 Chinese students were admitted into the United States to study the STEM (Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics) curricula.

China is on a rampage, developing large numbers of warships and military aircraft that often bear a strong resemblance to U.S. planes, ships and other such military assets.

China has constructed and militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea and has threatened military action if ship or aircraft of the U.S. or any other county gets too close. flexing its growing military muscles.

In some instances China has been able to enhance its military capability through the  acquisition of our military technology through espionage while at the same time, our best universities are providing these students with first-rate educations.

Once enrolled in school in the United States foreign students are entitled to accept employment to attain practical training.  All too often this displaces American workers and also provides opportunities for those students.

The Chinese government and entities within the Chinese military hack into American computers as frequently as humming birds beat their wings.  They hack into private computers, corporate computers, military compute networks.  However, America trains Chinese programmers.

The growing presence of Chinese students and Chinese influence on U.S. college campuses and elsewhere in the United States was the focus of my August 21, 2018 article, China Ratchets Up Its U.S. Spying Programs.

As I noted in that article, frustration with this situation has caused some U.S. security experts to refer to this wholesale espionage by China against the United States as “Chinese Takeout.”

The next element of this unfolding case involves Mr. Chaoqun being able to enlist in the U.S. military under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program that was described above.

This gets us back to the nonsense that we frequently hear from politicians from both political parties, that somehow it makes sense to permit illegal aliens to enlist in the military to then qualify for a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

Awhile back a common quote stated that “All roads lead to Rome.”  Today, where “solutions” to the immigration crisis is concerned, you might say that “All roads lead to a pathway to U.S. citizenship (or at least lawful status).”

This is as absurd and naive as it gets!

Chaoqun entered the U.S. legally as a student.  His ability to join the US. military facilitated his goal of attempting to recruit spies for China.  It must be presumed that he was vetted before he was able to join the MAVNI program, however the vetting process must be carefully reviewed to find out if his alleged connections with Chinese espionage could have been determined before he was able to join the U.S. military.

Military bases are among the most sensitive locations in the United States.  Those bases contain weapons, highly classified materials and members of the U.S. armed forces.

It is dangerous to provide foreign nationals with access to our military bases, when we are unable to effectively vet those foreign nationals.

Our political leaders who are often clueless about the how background investigations are conducted often refer to such investigations as “Background Checks.”

A “Background Check” is superficial and often only requires that a name an fingerprints are run through databases to search for known information.  This process takes just minutes and if the person assumes a false identity and his/her fingerprints are not known to that system, the system will essentially give that individual a clean “bill of health.”

Background investigations, on the other hand, are far more comprehensive and complete.  They are time consuming and require investigations be conducted the old fashioned way, by interviewing many people, showing photographs and checking myriad databases.  If those interviewed, for example claim that the person being investigated has use alternate identities, or other such major discrepancies are uncovered, then those new leads must be run down to gain a total picture.

Simply running names and fingerprints are nearly worthless and not likely to uncover fraud.  These concerns were the predication for an extensive article and a booklet I wrote under the common title, Immigration Fraud, Lies That Kill.

The immigration system, and the system by which visas applications are adjudicated are so overwhelmed that it is easy for a bad actor to slip through the cracks.

It is extremely fortunate that in the case that predicates my article today, that Chaoqun’s alleged nefarious actions were discovered.  However, he is hardly the only foreign national who is engaged in such activities.  Just as only a tiny percentage of motorists who speed ever get caught, it must be presumed that while some spies are caught, others are not caught and they can do truly irreparable damage to U.S. national security.

In point of fact, because this is apparently such a common practice that China refers to its efforts to spy on the United States as employing the principle of “A thousand grains of sand.”  Under this principle there are so many individuals who engage in this sort of espionage that all that each one needs to do is send back to China a very few parts to the puzzle where military aircraft, ships, weaponry or other sensitive information is concerned.  Once all of the pieces of the puzzles are in China it is relatively easy for them to create a mosaic to gain the entire picture by connecting each “grain of sand.”

As we can clearly see, the policies of the Trump administration to finally address the economic conflict between the United States and China represents the tip of a huge iceberg.  This economic conflict served as the predication for my article, Fears About Chinese “Trade War” Are Late And Dumb.  As I noted in that article, China has been waging economic war against the U.S. for decades.

Hope is not a strategy.  The United States must move swiftly to protect its security and the security of its citizens from all threats.

America’s borders are its first line of defense and last line of defense.

President Trump’s welcome calls for national sovereignty sum up that which would be in the best interests of America and Americans in this dangerous and turbulent era.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Silence Over A Potential Chinese Spy In Feinstein’s Office Is Deafening

Explain the Chinese spy, Sen. Feinstein

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. Reprinted with permission.